Was it a mistake to intentionally film this movie with crappy cameras?

This movie would not look right in 4k HD. The intended effect IS the gritty look, and I like it that way. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

There's a documentary called "Side by Side", produced by Keanu Reeves, in which Top Directors and DOP's are asked about the Digital vs. Film debate. It's interesting to see that there's no consensus on that matter, they're tools with different pros and cons.

In it, Danny Boyle and the DOP of "28 days later" explained that the main reason for using Digital was essentially budget.

They didn't have the money to shut down London's iconic spots for as long as would have been required to capture those scenes the way they did, with film.

The cheaper cameras allowed them to set 5 or more cameras from different angles with the aim of nailing the scene as quickly as possible. The result, I think, speaks for itself, those scenes are brilliantly eerie.

I watched the film again yesterday, and you can tell how quickly digital is developing. It does feel dated, and though there's also the argument that it makes the film look grittier, I would have preferred a less video-looking film... but hey.

This DOP had also just shot one or several of Lars Von Trier's films, and everyone at the time was excited by the flexibility that this new technology provided.

"Chinese girls do not come with green eyes"